Which is the Better Value, Canon C100 or C300? Plus a Short Film Scene Shot with the C100

This camera seems to be getting as much vitriol in the comments on this website as the Canon 1D C, but the Canon C100 also has its share of defenders. It might not be priced perfectly considering the features, but it's a camera that should just work out the box without much fuss, and Canon has made some key changes compared to the C300 that might be a deal-breaker for some, but well worth the cost-savings for others. I've said quite a bit about where I think this camera can fit in, but don't take my word for it, here is Philip Johnston with his review (which is also available for download):

Obviously Canon didn't have many options on where to put the LCD since they decided to shrink the camera down, but I think since the viewfinder on the back isn't great according to most reviewers, a loupe attached to the LCD is probably going to be a great option for getting critical focus (you thought you left those behind on your DSLR, huh?). I really think this is almost a perfect incognito documentary camera for low-light situations. Even though it doesn't already have a broadcast codec built-in, an external recorder should really be able to fix that without adding too much cost to the rig.

Speaking of external recorders, Ryan Emanuel, who frequents the site, has been testing the C100, and used a Hyperdeck Shuttle to record ProRes 4:2:2 HQ. Here is a little bit of his process, and the scene below:

It was shot handheld but on a wooden camera rig.

2 Sennheiser EW 100s hooked up to the xlr ins

Zeiss ZE 35mm 1.4 50mm Makro and 85mm 1.4

I used Canon log, I feel it gives by far the best results for narrative. In my CP, I adjust the white balance point 5 Magenta and 1 Blue. I think that though the c100 can mathematically white balance, it still has a green tint to it, but you can fix it. Canon log is preset at -10 on the sharpness, I turned that up a bit, and added a little color saturation in the darks, thats where the camera struggles a little bit.

I graded in davinci resolve but for the most part the look was derived in lighting.

http://vimeo.com/56264185

This is some of the better looking footage that I've seen out of the C100, and if it wasn't already clear to me before, it's definitely clear now: this camera can and will be used for narrative work. With a few modifications, you can basically get all of the benefits of the C300, and save a few dollars in the process. It's not clear what differences there are internally between the C100 and the C300, but at almost half the price, the C100 does most of what its higher-priced sibling can do -- except for the missing slow motion options (even though with a little work it's technically possible to somewhat replicate a 60p look using the 1080 60i setting in the camera).

Just to put it into perspective a bit, here is a comparison between the Sony EX1, Canon 5D Mark II, and the C100:

http://vimeo.com/57615567

The EX1 is still a $6,000 camera, and even though it does include a few more options like a built-in lens and 10-bit 4:2:2 out of the HD-SDI port, internally it's recording to a similar (or worse, depending) 35mbps 4:2:0 codec, and only does 720p 60fps. Just a few years ago this was one of the best 1080p cameras around for the money, but it's clear that there are many more advantages to having a large sensor, especially for cinematic purposes.

What do you think of the cinematic possibilities of the C100? Do you think we're spoiled because of so many low-cost cameras with large sensors in this price range? While they are aimed at totally different markets, what do you think about the fact that the EX1 is priced around the C100? Has any of the footage above changed your mind about the $6,500 C100?

As a high school teacher in film and television I regard the EX1/EX3s very high when it comes to multicamera setups and "studio" work. Great introductions to "real" cameras and ENG work, we get the whole workflow together with Media Composer (most used combo in Swedish TV), but also for narrative. Starting with good autofocus and then moving over to manual focusing and then to manual focusing with a larger sensor.

We use DSLR as well (some students bring their own) and we optimize them (looking at hacking and patches), how they compare to ENG cameras and so on. We also rent a RED package once a year for the students to try out and soon we'll have a BMCC package.

Yeah, the C100 is an all around decent camera, however I much prefer the image coming out the BMC for stuff I like to do. It has a very cinematic image that's great for narrative films. The C100 would make an incredible documentary or wedding / event camera.

I love my C100 with Atomos Ninja 2. I get the same look, great files for a reasonable price. For one, I don't like the BMCC. I shoot run and gun stuff. I need to have built in ND filters, I need to have XLR inputs, I need to have a viewfinder, I need to have a usable form factor out of the box.

It always make me laugh how people bash products or tools just based on spec list.

My high school sucked balls, the 5D mark II just came out at the time but instead they wasted money on those shitty panasonic hvx200s. I visited their film program as a guest last year and THEY were still using those same cameras, and a t2i and awful sigma lenses (seriously? for a private school with tons of money...) for B roll. The students are given little sony camcorders for their own projects. I dont get how out of touch they are.

I can't speak for the other stuff you've seen, but I think this scene looked like a soap opera because it sounded like a soap opera. I just don't get narrative scenes where actors wear lavs unnecessarily. If you turn off the sound and watch it again, it looks less daytime drama and more like small cable network drama, which I think is somewhere this camera may serve well.

Thanks for the comments guys, but I really just shot this piece to focus on cinematography not directing. I gave the actors a premise and they improved. I wanted to do a underexposed night scene with some blocking. The actors wore lavs because I had no crew. It was me and one other colleague.

I didn't mean any offense. I think it looks great. My comment about the lavs didn't come out right. I mean, that is how soap operas sound, which can shape a viewer's impression of the footage. I think this footage looks as good as most current (non-soap opera) television drama, which isn't a bad thing at all.

First it was a nice example video to really look at when taking in the C100. It is a camera I personally am taking a long look at since the AF100a really didn't set up as much as we wanted.

Based upon some other video I've seen this camera is really good at low light. The form factor seems to be liked by everyone that is using it actively, when Im shooting form factor is important. It looks like a very simple and forgiving camera that should be pretty flexible other than no overcrank and I don't think it has time lapse capacity which is a shame due to the low light performance.

Sebastian, in fairness, the BMCC and the C100 are two different cameras for different applications. For $7,500 (with atmos ninja 2) you can get a slightly lesser quality image as the BMCC that costs $4,000 with Juiced link xlr box. You're still going to have to buy a cage for either camera. The only real advantage I see with the C100 is the built in ND filter, but come on, that's not a deal breaker, and certainly not worth another $3,500.

Don't get me wrong, the C100 is a good camera. It's just that now with the new (cheaper) and better cameras coming out, Canon is going to have to come down on its prices.

I have both cameras. The BMCC moires like a canon 7d. The C100 will alias here and there, but the image is tight just like the C300. Workflow for each camera is so far apart. If you want to compare cameras by price, start thinking of the terabytes of HD space you will need to archive your BMC footy. THe BMC does make a good image, as long as you shoot like you would with a moire ridden HDslr. Then, start thinking about your IR filtration, sound solution, SSD's, LENSING, and support if your camera goes down.
Between the two, I would take the C100 on 9 out of 10 jobs.

I've been looking at c100 tests including the ones already posted, but there are more videos out there that seem to really show off the image quality of the camera as well as it's dynamic range... http://vimeo.com/57329530 It seems pretty good for all sorts of shootings whether it be events, weddings or film. Might be a right balance of minimal shooting, ergonomics and workflow - so in that sense, I do find the c100 a tad more appealing. The need for "higher specs" may sound spoiled, if not looking to future proof an investment and film/video/broadcast submission requirements (something that an Atomos Ninja 2 could easily avert). I suppose that's the appeal of the BMCC as the c100 would be more desirable at a lower price.

Still, it would be foolish to immediately brush off any camera that shows potential. The c100 certainly does have something.

Yes, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt for those that wanted a straight XLR breakout box with phantom power for use with the BMCC, to be a more balanced comparison. Still, you could buy two BMC cameras for the price of one C100 with Ninja 2 recorder. Or one BMCC and ten HD Hero 3 cameras. :)

I use it hand held,on monopod, slider, sticks with my 24-70 f4L IS or my primes (24L,35L,50L,85LII,100L,135L,400LIS).
You might only shoot at one camera so exposition with variable ND's is acceptable but we shoot at 3 cameras all the time. We need to edit quick and colour correct fast. (no lack of sharpness and green cast from variable ND's) I can also easily bring all of my gear in one ThinkTank Airport International V2 in any planes with me. The size of the BMCC + external devices needed would not allow me to do such a thing.

The other factor that bothers me a lot is after sale service. I never had an issue with Canon in 7 years (According to the web, I am a lucky man...hahahaha). What kind of support can we expect from black magic design? I am also already shooting my project with my C100 + ninja 2. Are you shooting with your BMCC or are you still awaiting delivery?

I am lucky to have a friend that received one so I test drive it. IMO If you shoot slow productions like cinema, BMCC is "better" but for interview, docu and events. To my eyes the C100 is better.

I see the judgment of others on the camera but how can you judge without using it? Who knows if the user is competent or not?

I agree with Sebastian. The C100 ergonomics make the use of a cage and other attachments rather pointless. Due to the design, the film plane is very close to your nose when shooting with the viewfinder, and this is the most stable place on your body. I hardly use Steadicam at all since purchasing the camera because I've found it to be adequately stable for most shots that require steadicam on other cameras.

With the new 18-135mm STM IS lens, it is remarkably versatile handheld. I've used the C100 along with Sony F3 and Sony FS100 (which yields similar colors to the FS700) and have noticed better color reproduction from the C100 when comparing shots from similar angles on the same scenes. We record to Ninja recorders when possible, but the C100's AVCHD is insanely good considering the bit rate. In most cases, it will be very difficult to see the differences unless you plan on remapping your hues into luma channels, or (of course) if you are shooting Chroma Key. Chroma Key off the C100 + Ninja 2 ProResHQ is absolutely superior to chromakey from the FS100 into a similar recorder. Skin tones are much better with the C100 than our other cameras. The camera's most unique benefit is its very high color sampling from the 4K sensor. This in many cases makes up for some of the technical features which we find on other cameras. Also, the built-in viewfinder is useable. Granted, it isn't as good as the one on the much less expensive GH3, but it is much better than the viewfinder on the Sony EX1.

??? And your comment means what exactly. Presumably you're saying that the BMCC and Digital Bolex are both cameras that are barely available and even the one that is available is for all intents and purposes a beta model. C100 is at least available to buy now and it works right out of the box.

The low light/high ISO test result is pretty awesome. Sorry to hear the viewfinder on a $6000 camera is not very good. Agree that the C100 should have more FPS options. Even the World War II era wind-up Filmo cameras had variable FPS...

I think BMCC is forward-thinking. Of course, I can only speculate because generally BMCC currently only exists in theory for most of us (delays). Nevertheless, NAB will be the deciding factor for me. The C100 looks great, of course, as a lot of online footage does with an array of cameras. C100's specs are yesteryear's and having to clamp on an external recorder to bring it up to par seems cumbersome.

And since we're discussing narrative, I would prefer to clamp audio stuff onto a BMCC that shoots ProRes or raw, than clamp (via rails) a Ninja onto a C100. I shoot sound-intensive narrative run-n-gun docs with a DSLR rig and achieving phantom power is easy, there are many approaches, you just have to know what devices offer 48v and take it from there, and I'm not referring only to a mixer.

Lavs don't even need phantom power or XLR, and if you're good with a gun (soldering gun) and fathom audio signal workflows, the BMCC's 1/4" TRS inputs are no problem. You have to go beyond manufacturing limitations and devise your own stuff. It seems a big complaint about BMCC is its audio and lack of XLR....hell, I wish it was 3.5mm TRS instead of 1/4" and use the extra space for more electronic circuitry such as active m43.

I won't buy a camera based on XLR. As I mentioned, it's easy to achieve 48v, and outside of docs, how many films use production sound anyway, vis-a-vis B-roll, ADR, VO, or musak?! I'll buy a camera for its visual apparatus. Internal ProRes and raw appeal to me. That's the future.

If I'm investing thousands of dollars on a camera system I shouldn't have to DIY anything. Sometimes it seems like folks are more concerned with gazing in awe at the multitude of pixels with great dynamic range etc. than the practicality of actually OPERATING the camera on set.

IMO it makes more sense to pay the significantly lower price for the BMCC, and you can then spend the difference on kit to make it "production ready" if that's a concern. Admittedly I've not used it, but it seems to me it shouldn't be too hard to turn it into a relatively small all-in-one solution. If you're going to add a recorder to the C100, surely you may as well add a compact rig and audio solution to the BMCC?

We've only been going for two years, but it was scary choosing equipment on that kind of budget and not fall into the kid-in-a-candy-shop-syndrome. But looking at my former workplaces and what I thought was shitty about my own high school (and film school for that matter) is was a no brainer going with the EX cams and Avid. But it's still a bit concerning with tech moving forward so fast, makes you wonder how much time I got left before I gotta tell my boss that the equipment is fine but outdated. Today I think the EX cameras are overpriced. Not much, they're amazing work horses, but a it could be cheaper when the demand is larger for large sensors now.

"Feels like a camera for weddings. And a camera that is too late out. It is on par with the “old” fs100 and both these camera will be outdated in 3 months after NAB 2013. Sad but true."

What about documentary? I think it's huge for that. It really isn't on par with the fs100, the perceived resolution is much higher, also the ability for high clean iso is big deal. It definitely is a bit late, and certainly for that price point!

i've owned the ex1 and now the c100.. with the c100 at the same price the ex is redundant as the c100 destroys it.. i don't know a better doco option under 10k than the c100.. in fact it almost stands up against the c300 as a viable option being smaller and having clean hdmi out.. this camera is definitely far more capable than weddings.. it also performs beautifully in well lit conditions with nice glass.. ultimate affordable alrounder at the moment..

I guess you've never really compared footage from the C100 (or C300) and DSLRs. I own a C100 and also different DSLRs. The C100 _is_ a real improvement over DSLRs. Not only for the features but also for the image quality.

First, there are many features, such as: improved low light sensitivity, internal ND filters, XLR inputs (no need for Sound Device MixPre-D any longer), waveform display (a hell better than histogram)... and especially Canon Log! Canon Log is a really really nice feature (even with all the limitations of 8 bits color depth). Compared to DSRLs (yet to see Canon 1D-C), you also got all the gamma and color curve "tweak" parameters (e.g: color data matrix, knee shape of the gamma curve, etc). With all these features, the C100 _is_ definitely a movie camera and not a still camera (unlike DSRLs).

As for the image quality, it is definitely a hell sharper with less moire (some aliasing however) and a huge DR (when shooting at base ISO with Canon Log). The image _is_ sharp directly from the shot, not requiring any kind of processing in post (like with the Canon 5D mkIII). Also, the noise when present is really really "organic" (it looks like "genuine" films, not "digital" video).

IMHO, the only remaining usefulness of DSLRs is when the main requirement is for a very thin depth of field. And this only validates the use of full frame DSLRs. And for this particular use, I would definitely opt for the new Canon 1D-C body (it has Canon Log unlike 1D-X) but this has yet to be tested... and the 1D-C is highly overpriced (IMHO).

My only complains concerning the C100 is its price tag, a bit too high for what it is (but it is close to Canon XF305). I would better see its price close to Sony FS100. I guess, we pay for the sensor. It has the same sensor as the big brother C300 but apparently with 8 bit processing contrary to C300 (10 bits processing but still 8 bits in output).

If the Canon C300 would have been 10 bits depth (with Canon Log), I would have ruined myself and bought it directly... There is the Sony F5, amazing and at a good price, but it is.... bulky, bulky, bulky! I dream of the C300 with a firmware upgrade that will allow it to produce 10 bits color depth output (for the same price....). I hope Canon will react (by lowering its prices... cross fingers) in response to Sony F5 low price....

Tss tsss... all these people praising for the BMCC... Gimme a break!
Except for the raw output and 10 bits of color depth (ah? and also the base price, I forget), what's the point?

The BMCC has a small sensor, meaning:
1) the depth of field is _not_ shallow,
2) performance in low light is really bad,
3) finding decent fast lenses is a real hassle due to the "uncommon" crop factor (2.4).

What's the point of having 10 bits of color when you got plenty of noise in low light?

For getting a shallow depth of field, you need a fast aperture (faster than for a super-35mm sensor since the sensor is smaller). And it is definitely _NOT_ easy to find a fast "normal" focal lens (20mm f1.4) with many iris blades for getting a wonderful bokeh, Oh yeah, there are lenses approaching these specs but with the PL mount (Zeiss Ultra Primes or Cooke but there are only T2.0 and their cost is... let's say... "atomic" even in rental for small projects).

We don't buy cameras for the future but we invest in lenses.

When I shoot a movie sequence, I prefer to use existing lighting as most as possible and not bring "tons of artificial lights" because of the low light limitations of the used movie camera.

BTW, I own a C100, so I know what I speak about. I don't defend this camera as this is just the right tool for me: I can shoot handheld with the bare camera (no rig) right out the the box (or with an additional zacuto e-finder in some cases). With a "stabilized" lenses (17-55mm IS or 24-105mm IS), it's easy to shoot USABLE shots and even in low light conditions with decent DR (using Canon Log). No need for a rig, no need for a XLR phantom adapter, just the bare camera (with a mike and possibly an external e-finder for some cases).

For getting something better, I think I'll do the step and buy a new Sony F5. It's in the same price tag as the Canon C300 BUT it's 10 bits color depth (all the accessories are more expensive however.... :-(

As for the C100, the Canon Log does a pretty good job even though the target is 8 bits. And the camera internal codec does also a pretty good job. I don't understand all these people only swearing by external recorders (except maybe for 4.2.2 color sampling) because it's still 8 bits! 4.2.2 is especially useful for green matte effect... but apart from that...

BTW, I know that I am speaking about because I am an engineer and I work for a company developing video software...Except for the aforementioned reason, there are no other reason for using an external recorder with the C100 (maybe except for FCP that can't directly digest h264, but this is another story...)

Depth of field is shallow when using an ND filter.
the crop factor is 2.3
Without many megapixels on the sensor, the low light is actually pretty good.
Unlike the C100, porno quality television look, the BMC has a filmic quality.

Just shot some documentary style footage with C100 and internal codec. White balance is a bit blue so it looks videoish. Overall it's a great camera, the low light capabilities are absurd, it literally sees in the dark.
Cons: Even with all the ND filters on (6 stops) you can't keep the iris wide open at f1.4. or 2.0 there is too much light anyways.Other hassle is the lack of an 4" optical viewfinder on the market (Apart from expensive ZAcuto and shitty Hoodman), the internal VF is crap.
These where shot on Wide DR picture profile and little ability with the brand new camera.

As far as I'm concerned anybody who has a hostile negative opinion about any camera is limiting your worth. If you are already at the top and you only shoot Alexa thats fine, but if you are at the bottom you are bottlenecking your experience in different shooting environments.

There has definitely been some spec indoctrination, while this camera is way ahead of the curve sensor wise, because certain benefits are only known by owners and not marketed many feel that this camera is dated.

For example, on most sensors if you increase ISO lets say to 3200, there is a reduction in sharpness and the color matrix becomes manipulated, and the dynamic range distribution shifts drastically. None of those things happen on canon s35. This means that I can expose my scene at 3200, thats a revolution! I love HMIs, hate their rental costs. I don't need them on canon, because my tungsten fixtures have their full punch even gelled for daylight color temp! I can gel them with a full ctb, and counteract the light loss by raising the ISO by two stops from the native ISO. There are some serious possibilities to consider having ISO freedom like that with lighting creatively. You can get a distinctive look with less light and less money. That beam of light that you want to come in throw the window can be achieved at 25% of the wattage it would take on other cameras. Picture quality is cool but its not going to make your film better. I'll take less picture quality as long as I get more cinematography freedom and lower rental costs which can lead to a better image and production at least for me.

Used the C300 for the first time yesterday. It's a great Docu camera or Reality TV

-Cards are cheap and don't really have to download if you have enough media
-Codec is very compressed so allot of Minutes/GB I think 32GB was saying something like 81Min?
-Batteries Last Forever
-Next Step up from DSLR

I'm not a big fan of these cameras personally but I prefer Narrative/Commercial work so Red works best for me. The build is kinda plasticy and its a weird Video Camera/ Cinema camera. The Menu system is very old school like a camcorder and the screen isn't touch sensitive. I dunno it's a weird build all hot shoes to lol

I still think the BMC is your best bet, but Im just a sucker for RAW.

If i could get 12-bit 444 then I would consider to use it on personal jobs but for most people it works for them. I heard they payed $12k which is a really good deal cause with an extra $400 you're shooting but at the same time I've seen Scarlets go for $12k on Reduser.net

Joe Marine just curious what do you mean by the c100 being a documentary camera, not saying its the perfect camera ,but can you elaborate on why this camera could not be considered a motion picture camera,when its basically the same as a C300 MINUS about 25mbps. I just hate when people catagorize something subjectively without giving full detail. Especially when a 5d mark11 and other 1080p cameras have been used on the big screen. This camera again not the best but has a nice RGB sophisiticated unit paired with a hefty large almost 4k sensor.

In documentary shooting, you don't have time to go set up lighting, get your primes out, set your tripod up -- and prep the talking. You are usually running-and-gunning. So you need a camera that works well in low-light. Between Canon's 5D Mark 3 and the Cx00 series of cameras, you get low-light like no other camera.

With the built-in ND filters, you can go from shooting indoors to outdoors without playing with filters or matte-boxes. With the XLR audio sources, you can allow the camera to handle audio ingest. And the form factor allows you to shoot without a rig. It's a combination of all these features that make the C100 a documentary filmmaker's dream camera.

Of course it can be a motion picture camera, and I did say that above. I was just saying it's really perfect for documentary shooting where you don't want to be noticed but need a fully featured and light sensitive camera.

For documentary work (and possibly news gathering), the C100 has all the right bells-and-whistles. It has a great form factor, it has built-in ND, it performs amazingly in low-light, and it has great run-time. Yes, the codec is crippled, but unless you are shooting sports, the codec in the camera will be fine.

If you are going to be shooting greenscreen, you are going to shoot on a RAW camera, like the BMCC. If you are going to shoot a feature film, you'll probably want 10- or 12-bits of depth for flexibility in color grading. C100 provides 8-bits.

I think that C100 could be priced more aggressively, but it has all the markings of a successfully mid-tier camera system.

BEN all good info and true stuff, i guess what we need to really do is wait until canon releases the firmware for clean uncompressed 422 on canon mark 3 and compare the footage to see exactly how this camera differs from others. It would have been great to have a 10bit camera but at the same time 8 bit is more than enough for a talented colorist to work with.

The C100s are impressive and a really good choice for certain shoots. Another camera to consider would be the Scarlet from Red. The RAW file recording of the red is a very powerful feature, but if you don't need or want the RAW R3D file advantages, stay with the Canons.

What a lot of BMCC fans seem to ignore is the awkward chip size. BMCC really dropped the ball here. It should've been either Super 16 size or Super 35 size. It's current size severely limits your lens options, especially for narrative work. If it were S-16, you could've exploited all that great super 16 cinema glass catching dust.

Get your FREE copy of the eBook called "astonishingly detailed and useful" by Filmmaker Magazine!
It's 100+ pages on what you need to know to make beautiful, inexpensive movies using a DSLR. Subscribe to receive the free PDF!